Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to understand why, if $S$ is a Seifert fibered space, then $\pi_1(S)$ is residually finite. From theorems 12.2 and 11.10 in Hempel's "3-manifolds", we can work with a finite-sheeted covering $M$ such that $M$ is an $S^1$-bundle over a closed surface $T$. According to a 1987 paper by Hempel, there exists a finite-sheeted covering $\widehat{M}$ of $M$, such that $\widehat{M}$ is of the type $S^1\times F$, $F$ a closed surface. Of course, the result follows from this, but my question is:

Why does $\widehat{M}$, with such a homeomorphism type, exist?

I'm not actually sure if the existence of $\widehat{M}$ is necessary to deduce the r.f. of $\pi_1(M)$, but I don't think knowing only that it fits into the sequence $1\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow\pi_1(M)\rightarrow\pi_1(T)\rightarrow 1$ is enough.

share|improve this question
Should note I am ignoring the special cases when $\pi_1(S)$ is virtually cyclic, since those are easy. – Steve D Apr 11 '11 at 2:34

3 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

As Sam Nead points out, it's not correct that every Seifert-fibred space is finitely covered by a product. The obstruction to this is the Euler number of the bundle. I strongly recommend Peter Scott's article 'The geometries of 3-manifolds' if you want to find out more about Seifert-fibred spaces. A scanned copy is available on his web page.

In the case when the base orbifold $O$ is torsion-free (and this is something that you always can assume by passing to a finite-sheeted cover---the point is that we only need to consider 'good' orbifolds, see Scott for details), the Euler number can be thought of as the obstruction to the short exact sequence

$1\to \mathbb{Z}\to\pi_1(M)\to\pi_1(O)\to 1$

splitting. Of course, this always happens when $\pi_1(O)$ is a free group, ie when $O$ is a surface with boundary.

This is why Hempel says you can assume that a finite-sheeted cover is a product---because he really cares about the case in which the JSJ decomposition is non-trivial. In this case, the Seifert-fibred pieces all have boundary, and so do indeed have a finite-sheeted cover that's a product.

Finally, it is true that you can prove residual finiteness of Seifert-fibred manifolds just from the short exact sequence. But care is needed! Deligne gave a famous example of a central extension of a lattice in a Lie group which is not itself residually finite.

For this reason, the proof is quite fiddly. The idea is to reduce to the case of a finite central extension of a surface group. You can in fact prove that any finite central extension of any residually finite one-relator group is residually finite, using Magnus's theorem that free groups are residually torsion-free nilpotent.

For full details, you could look for instance at this paper of Martino, in which he proves the stronger fact that Seifert-fibred 3-manifold groups are conjugacy separable.

share|improve this answer
Thank you for the link to the Martino paper, that is a very nice proof indeed! – Steve D Apr 19 '11 at 5:45

I think something is wrong here. If $M$ is the unit tangent bundle for a closed connected orientable surface $S$ of genus two (or larger) then $M$ is a Seifert fibered space, admitting $\widetilde{SL_2(R)}$ geometry. Following Scott (see the second to last paragraph of page 466 of his article "The geometries of 3-manifolds") the manifold $M$ cannot be finitely covered by a product $S^1 \times F$. This is because ${\rm Isom}\left(\widetilde{SL_2(R)}\right)$ does not contain closed hyperbolic surface groups.

You could cut the manifold $M$, given above, along a vertical torus. Then the base surface has boundary and so the unit tangent bundle has both $\widetilde{SL_2(R)}$ and $R \times H$ geometries. Because of the latter, there are covers that are products.

I don't have access to Hempel's article. If you know of a copy on-line please post a link here. When I searched for it I found only your other question: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/61661/residual-finiteness-of-fundamental-group-of-compact-3-manifold

share|improve this answer

The proof of residual finiteness of the central cyclic extensions of surface groups is not hard: It suffices to consider the extension group with the presentation

$G=<a_1,b_1,...,a_g, b_g, t| [a_1,b_1]...[a_g,b_g]=t, [a_i,t]=1, [b_i,t]=1>$.

Now, kill all $a_i, b_i$ except for $a_1, b_1$. The quotient is the integer Heisenberg group $H=<a,b, t | [a,b]=t>$. The latter group is isomorphic to the group of integer 3x3 upper triangular matrices with 1's on the diagonal. We thus get a homomorphism $h: G\to H$ that is injective on the subgroup $<t>$. We also have the epimorphism $f: G\to F$, where $F$ is the surface group which kills the generator $t$. Now, take the product homomorphism $f\times h: G\to F\times H$ which is clearly injective. Since both $F$ and $H$ are residually finite, it follows that $G$ is residually finite as well. This argument also shows that $G$ is linear. It is an open problem (due to W.Thurston in 1980's) if the fundamental group of every compact 3-manifold $M$ is linear. (The hard case is when the JSJ-decomposition of $M$ is nontrivial, otherwise it follows from Perelman.)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.